This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Conversation, cooperation, civility, all the foundations of complex, positive-sum human interaction rely on shared values to operate. Liberalism generates values-diversity. When values become sufficiently diverse to be mutually incoherent, conversation, cooperation and civility can't function any more. That's what you're seeing around you: values-incoherent people losing the ability to interact in a positive-sum manner because they lack the necessary common ground.
Don't lay this at the feet of liberalism. The problem is several universalist beliefs systems have formed due to liberalism's permissiveness. These universalist beliefs are zero-sum and require their adherents to both proselytize and interfere with other groups values systems. In a vacuum these belief systems are effective at outcompeting "liberalism" in peaceful ways but their main problem is they can't outcompete each other without violence. Liberalism is a stable solution within a particular value substrate that acts as an additive transformation to myriad existing beliefs, requiring them to adopt a particular value base in regards to divergent belief systems around acceptance and non-universality. Merely add that substrate to your beliefs, keep to your own community, and voila problem solved, no violence. However you can outcompete that by being the only universalist game in town. However belief systems exist in a reactive state, so the rise of one universalist belief begets others, which leads us back to the cycle of violence until everyone "rediscovers" the Chesterton's fence of the liberalism substrate.
Why do human's keep returning to universalist beliefs? Because we are dumb tribal simians and the spite and anger we get at targeting outgroups is a drug addiction beyond heroin. We are pretty much fucked as a species, we can't outgrow our firmware, and most of us just want to sit in the trees and hoot about that other group that looks slightly different to us.
It's not liberalism that birthed universalist belief systems; universalist systems predate and birthed liberalism.
I’m not sure i would ever suggest otherwise, though maybe not in the way you are suggesting.
Liberalism was birthed from the centuries of religious sectarianism in Europe. Christianity is a universalist belief system. All of its offshoots are viciously universalist towards each other. White English Protestants killing White English catholics, Anglicans versus Presbyterian, French Catholics and Huguenots, Anabaptists versus other Protestants, etc. For liberalism critics I challenge you to explain what value differences all these different branches of Christianity have that prevented them from tolerating each other?
Liberalism was the system that developed the equilibrium.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link